Germany: Parents Cannot Get Boys Circumcised

[Taluntain]

T2, I'm sure the American medical community has researched every infinitesimally small benefit for circumcision that they could find and put it on a list, and STILL they've decided to STOP recommending the practice after decades of being one of very, very few civilized countries where circumcision was pretty much mandatory on (at least on paper) non-religious reasons.

Don't you think that if the supposed benefits were really there, or actually worth it, that the official stance wouldn't have changed? I'm sure it took a heck of a lot of effort to change the stance on a position that got so deeply rooted in the American culture that boys whose genitals were left unmutilated were (are) viewed as "freaks"?

Sorry, but if you're going as far as saying that the doctors in both Europe and America (most of whom were probably circumcised themselves and shared your POV) don't know what they're talking about, then who exactly is qualified to advocate one position or the other? Only your Average Joe American who comes from a family with a tradition of boys getting circumcised for at least the last 70 years and who views anyone who isn't as an abomination and an affront to God?

[T2Bruno]

Tal, you're making assumptions. I never said all doctors were wrong, only that the article linked was extremely biased (perhaps justifiably but I'm not really concerned about it). I also said the arguments by some members of the boards about circumcision were wive's tales and urban myths.

There are some nut cases who want to equate circumcision with ritualistic genitilia mutilation -- what a bunch of BS. Such statements really diminish the absolute horror the women in such situations go through. Taking a little excess flesh off the penis (which was probably first started by some moron trying to get his 12 year old son to stop whacking off) is nothing comparied to the removal of the clitoris. They're not even in the same league. There are also some who put circumcision and castration on the same level in arguments. Ridiculous. When idiots start making such extreme statements it weakens the argument. It may be a form of mutilation, but more like piercing and tattoos -- so make those illegal too.

I think these types of laws are a waste of time and taxpayer money.

[Ragusa]

From the American cancer society [Linky]:

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.
...
In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

T2,
the problem is that when adults make the decision over whether to get their foreskin cut off or to get a tattoo or a boob job that's ok because it is adults making the decision for themselves. Naturally, when children are being circumcised, it's adults making the decision also, but the procedure is irreversible and they don't have to carry the consequences themselves. As indicated by the statement of the cancer society, it is largely an unnecessary medical procedure.

Circumcision is used for cultural reasons and that it prevents penile cancer is just a rationalisation.

[joacqin]

It is worse to cut off an arm than a finger but you are still cutting things off.

[T2Bruno]

Ragusa, you're confusing my ranting against rather silly arguments with agreement of the procedure.

I've seen small children with piercings and there was even a push to tattoo children with identification in case of stranger abduction a while back in the US -- I view these things similar to circumcision. There are also a lot of unnecessary medical procedures a parent can force onto their children (tonsillectomy comes to mind and is not necessary in most cases). A country can outlaw them all if they want but it's still a waste of government time and money IMO.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Montresor

If we accept the theory of evolution, then why should nature spend 3 million years giving man a foreskin if it is a liability? I mean, evolution would see to it that men without foreskin were removed from the gene pool and men without would prevail. But the opposite seems to have happened.

Originally Posted by dmc

Monty - not so sure that evolution is all that simple. If the thing is not statistically significant to the propogation of the species, it shouldn't matter.

dmc is completely correct here. The only way evolution works is by removing genes from the population that diminish one's chances of reproducing. The top three causes of death in the US are heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. What they all have in common is that they typically only manifest themselves after the age when one would be reproducing. Evolution can't act to remove any genetic predispositions towards these diseases from the species, because by the time that you see the negative affects of these conditions, your genes have already been passed on.

By Monty's reasoning, no one should have an appendix, and men definitely shouldn't have nipples. Evolution doesn't work that way. The only way evolution works are removing conditions that hinder or prevent one from reproducing. Those genes then aren't passed on to future generations, eventually eliminating them from the gene pool.

If something neither helps nor hurts one's chances of reproducing, there's nothing for evolution to work on. Those genes will likely stay in the species. As an example, look at things like hair color and eye color. Evidently, there's no universally ideal hair color or eye color, as we still see all the different types today. (Granted in people of African and Asian descent, black hair and brown eyes is practically all you ever see, but the larger point is that if having blonde hair or blue eyes was an impediment to reproducing, we wouldn't see any people with blonde hair or blue eyes. It isn't, so the phenotype persists.)

[Montresor]

I'd say that something which is not beneficial would be removed by evolution, especially from the reproductive organs. So a foreskin must be, if not beneficial, then definitely not a drawback!

If a foreskin is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, I'd expect to see boys born both with and without foreskins. If foreskins were a disadvantage, I'd expect evolution to eliminate them. Since all boychildren are born with foreskins, I have to assume that they serve some kind of purpose.

[T2Bruno]

If a foreskin is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, I'd expect to see boys born both with and without foreskins. If foreskins were a disadvantage, I'd expect evolution to eliminate them. Since all boychildren are born with foreskins, I have to assume that they serve some kind of purpose.

dmc's comment still applies, you haven't changed the precepts of the argument. Having neither an advantage nor disadvantage is no reason for evolutionary change -- there needs to be a fairly significant advantage or no change at all will occur. There is no reasonable expectation of seeing boys born with and without foreskins even if the foreskin is unnecessary. By the reasoning you used having an appendix or tonsils or nipples in men would simply be a random occurance -- obviously not the case.

[Montresor]

At the very least a foreskin cannot be a disadvantage. If it were, evolution would eliminate it - after all, we are talking about the male reproductive organ so any disadvantage would affect the ability to procreate. Evolution has had three million years or so to improve on the design of the male reproductive organ in Homo Sapiens and has not done so.

In fact, those three million years of evolution have produced a species where 100% of all boys are born with foreskins and 0% are born without. I consider those statistics significant enough that I personally believe that, in the general case men are better off with their foreskins than without them.

And I certainly don't believe that circumcision is in any way advantageous to a newborn baby.

[T2Bruno]

You're using a circular argument and not really considering how evolution works. Also, homo sapiens have only been around for ~200,000 years and we have no evidence I know of which can accurately describe the male reproductive organ of early homo sapiens let alone that of australopithecus africanus (which did live three million years ago). Is what we have an improvement from back then? I don't know. Is what we have now the ideal? Again, don't know.

Evolution does not always take the best long term path or the path to make the best end product. It simply takes the path that is best at that moment in time -- for whatever reason. Evolutionary arguments are rather silly when discussing such things.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Montresor

At the very least a foreskin cannot be a disadvantage. If it were, evolution would eliminate it - after all, we are talking about the male reproductive organ so any disadvantage would affect the ability to procreate.

That much I'd agree with - if it were a major impediment to reproducing, then surely it would have been eliminated.

Evolution has had three million years or so to improve on the design of the male reproductive organ in Homo Sapiens and has not done so.

Evolution doesn't have a design in mind - it's not working towards anything. Changes occur by random chance, and most of those changes are deleterious. Evolution is not working towards "building a better penis". Or anything else like that. Just because you've gone through countless generations doesn't mean that evolution has optimized something. It doesn't guarantee that you get something that is the ideal solution. All it gives you is something that works - at that particular moment in time.

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

Is what we have now the ideal? Again, don't know ... Evolution does not always take the best long term path or the path to make the best end product. It simply takes the path that is best at that moment in time -- for whatever reason.

It probably isn't. There's no reason to suspect that evolution has designed the perfect penis. We can be pretty confident in saying that it has designed one that does a pretty good job of getting genes to the next generation, but there's nothing to suggest it couldn't get better. Just look at me (and I suspect T2). We can throw ours over our shoulder, so obviously we represent an advanced subset - but most guys aren't so lucky.

[Montresor]

I have to go by the observable data. After 3 million years, or maybe only a mere 200,000 years, the statistics are:

100% of all boy children are born WITH a foreskin.
0% of all boy children are born WITHOUT.

Based on that observation, I can draw one of 3 possible conclusions:

1) A foreskin is an advantage in some way.
2) A foreskin doesn't matter one way or another; we just happen to be born with one.
3) Nature has committed an error, and we'd all be better off without foreskins.

I find 1) to be the most probable.

Until and unless somebody can prove scientifically that I'd be better off without a foreskin, I prefer not to have the doctors cut off any part of that most important part of me.

[T2Bruno]

That you would prefer to have your foreskin is a valid argument ... dragging evolution into this with false precepts is not. Such arguments, along with the 'reduced pleasure due to missing flabby skin' and 'reduced pleasure due to callous build up' are just ridiculous and weaken the overall argument.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I will concede that there probably was some evolutionary advantage to having a foreskin. It provided a protective layer of skin over some pretty sensitive material. Of course, at the time that evolved, our hominid ancestors were likely walking around without any clothing. So I'm not sure the same advantage that the foreskin gave is still present now, because most people were underwear/pants/shorts/something to cover up.

It should also be pointed out that circumcision will never cause people to be born without a foreskin. If, for the next million years, every male was circumcised, a million years from now, 100% of boys will still be born with foreskins. It's coded in the DNA, and since there doesn't seem to be any great advantage of having versus not having a foreskin in terms of reproductive success, they're not just going to go away.

We can go back to a prior example to explain why. Evolution also has gone to great lengths to ensure everyone has an appendix - even though it serves absolutely no purpose to us. But the thing is it doesn't hurt our reproductive success either (well if it ruptures at an early age it does, but very few people die from appendicitis). So things that don't hurt or help your reproductive success can and do stay present for millions and millions of years.

[joacqin]

How could you argue: "'reduced pleasure due to missing flabby skin' and 'reduced pleasure due to callous build up' are just ridiculous and weaken the overall argument." T2? Those are very sound arguments. Not only common sense supports them but there are robust science and lots of people who can witness about it. I have a mate who got circumcised due to having a too tight foreskin and he has real problems with actually climaxing when he has sex. When I was in the army there were some dudes who went around with their foreskin pulled back for an entire week so they would be able to last longer when they got home to their girlfriends. What is your argument that those arguments are stupid? They are one of the solid facts of this discussion and a thing that has often been lifted up as a pro of circumcision.

[T2Bruno]

They're wive's tales joacqin, not facts. For every example you could give where some dude "has real problems climaxing" after circumcision, I could give you examples of circumcised guy who can't last more than a couple of minutes. Pulling their skin back to increase longevity? Please, I get emails in my spam box with more credible ways to "make her happy in bed."

[The Great Snook]

This entire issue is silly. For anyone to think that it is "child abuse" to circumcize an infant is crazy. The kid will never remember it and doesn't cry anymore than they do when they are hungry or have **** themselves. They cry even less if they suck on a wine soaked blanket for a few minutes (as is done in a Jewish Bris).

IMO this is just a bunch of busybodies who are being pains in the ass. If someone wants to circumcize their son they should have every right to do so. By the same token if a parent chooses to not do so, that is their choice.

As to the argument about "the child isn't old enough to choose", that is pure bullcrap. Parents make many choices for their child and the vast majority of them are permanent and the child has no input (Where they live, what schools they go to, etc.)

You would think Germany would have more important issues.

[joacqin]

This is a big issue, too many children are mutilated by their parents and it needs to stop. The only problem with outlawing it is that then it moves from proper clinics to back alleys and homes where some cross eyed imam or drunk rabbi carves up the entire mid section of the child.

[Ragusa]

The Great Snook,
there is a risk if the procedure is not handled professionally. Considering that it has been done to billions of people over the millennia it is ludicrous to assume that it is inherently dangerous. But that is not the point. As the court notes, in this case it was done professionally. To give a brief run through the decision:

As far as criminal law goes the reasoning is straightforward and rather compelling. Legally, there is a near consensus among criminal law experts that unnecessary surgery constitutes the criminal offence of bodily harm under §223 StGB. Circumcision is not necessary medically. It thus constitutes bodily harm.

Parental care also doesn't justify the measure either, since that only covers educational measures that promote the well-being of the child. It is hard to argue that unnecessary surgery does that. The court explicitly weighs the rights of the parents for their religious freedom against the right to physical integrity and self determination of the child, and comes to the conclusion that the parent's interests do not outweigh those of the child.

The ruling is final. The LG Köln is already the second instance. In the previous instance the doctor had been acquitted. There will not be a revision from the Prosecutor's office.

Whether that reasoning properly takes into account religious freedom - that is another matter and less certain imo. The constitutional court may theoretically strike it down on constitutional grounds, if the doctor brings it there, and if the court takes it. Both, however, is unlikely because he had been acquitted twice in both trials - i.e. there is no personal grievance in that for him to appeal against, but that is the precondition to have standing. The parents of the boy also can't go to court because they have no grievance either - after all they did get their kid circumcised according to Muslim custom.

Politically there is a lot of push back against the ruling, from Catholic, Jewish and Muslim organisations and from across the entire political spectrum. Where I see this headed is probably the Bundestag. I think it is not inconceivable that there will be a law that amends the criminal code StGB, or amends the constitution. Something to the effect that the religious practice of circumcision does not constitute inflicting bodily harm. Actually, it is IMO better that they settle it than that a court does.

[LKD]

I'd say the drunk rabbi comment needs some backup. Are you in possession of some actual data that demonstrates rabbis screw up the procedure more often than medical doctors? I mean, Jews have been doing it for centuries and have had a lot of practice.

Quite a while ago someone mentioned guys harboring resentment toward their fathers for hacking off half their dingaling. I can personally attest that I have never felt this resentment, and have also never met anyone who expressed it. I'll delve into supposition and hazard that anyone with such resentment probably has a multitude of other issues and is merely looking for something else to tack on.

Speaking personally, though, those opposed to circumcision have given me food for thought. As I mentioned, like most boys in Canada I was snipped, and have never given the procedure much thought. I was always told it was for hygienic reasons. I'm quite sure that preventing masturbation was not even on my parents' radar when it came to the circumcisions of their male offspring. Given the current medical research that indicates the hygienic value is minimal, if I were to have a son, I would likely not have him circumcised. As I said before, it has no religious meaning to me (and contrary to what was said earlier, neither I nor any of my friends ever viewed uncircumcised guys as "abominations before God") and thus it would be easy enough for me to forgo the procedure.

But making it illegal is a bridge too far, IMHO. I support religious freedom, and the somewhat hysterical assertions that it is a form of mutilation and abuse are absurd. It's been being done for several thousand years and the world has managed to progress just fine. As Snook said, there are other issues of much greater importance. There are laws regarding incompetence and malpractice that adequately cover the rare cases of serious screw ups. I would guess that the Catholics are advocating circumcision for reasons if religious solidarity -- the New Testament is quite clear about circumcision being unnecessary for Christians, and thus their support is more likely a case of "we'll support this Jewish/Muslim religious requirement because one day the govt. may come after one of ours" sort of mentality.

[joacqin]

Been several cases here where some incompetent has screwed up the procedure to what I assume is the great sorrow of the future man. For me the only pro of having it legal is that it can then be done openly by professionals who are under scrutiny. If it is illegal then people are forced to rely on whoever is willing to break the law and that is usually not a good idea when it comes to surgery.

Where do we draw the line at religious freedom though? I am sure there are those who would claim religious freedom for female circumcision as well and I doubt people would be as understanding there. When all is said and done this is as you said probably not a big issue but isn't that the entire point? Why do something that has no positive benefits and several negative to an infant who has no say in the matter when it could just as easily be done as the choice of the grown man? On a personal note and I don't know about you but I have seen videos of circumcisions and it is not a pretty sight. I for one am not comfortable with wielding scalpels around infants and cutting off pieces of them. Snook's comment about them not screaming any louder than when they are hungry kinda scares me. I don't think they can scream any louder, I am sure they would scream the same if you tore out their tongue or chopped off their foot that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.

[Ragusa]

LKD,
the words mutilation and circumcision sound over the top - but, in essence, like mutilation, circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Unless you're in some crap place in South America or Africa where hygiene is poor, circumcision serves no rational medical purpose. Necessity is measured by that standard.

As I wrote earlier, even a hair cut without consent is inflicting physical harm. In fact every medical procedure is in its essence inflicting physical harm, justified only by medical necessity and (in the absence of an imminent danger to his life, and as long as the patient is conscious) - consent.

"Later he'll thank us" is not an argument that will stand up in court.

[T2Bruno]

Resurrecting another thread here but the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a Policy Statement on Circumcision today. The abstract:

Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

[Gaear]

I also heard they could not find/document any 'sensitivity' issues arising from circumcision.

[Taluntain]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

Resurrecting another thread here but the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a Policy Statement on Circumcision today. The abstract:

Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

Thanks for the update - though I can't say that I'm surprised. There's insane amounts of bias towards circumcision in the US and the amount of flak they must've been taking all these years must have been overwhelming. It was far easier to just quote some mostly BS reasons like the above (prevention of HIV FTW) and change it back to something that won't upset the majority of the population.

Oddly enough though, I'm sure that everyone who easily dismissed the previous AAP recommendation against circumcision will now be citing it as the Holy Bible every time the subject will come up.

But I guess now that the US is at odds with literally every other (Western) national medical organization, things are back to their usual disorder.

For anyone who cares, here's a response: http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm